School #7

Determinism

Laplace, Spinoza

Determinism holds that every event, including every human thought and action, is the inevitable consequence of prior causes operating according to fixed natural laws. Baruch Spinoza's 'Ethics' (1677) provided the foundational metaphysics: God and Nature are identical, and everything that exists follows from the divine nature with the same necessity by which the properties of a triangle follow from its definition — free will is an illusion born of ignorance of the causes that move us. Pierre-Simon Laplace's 'A Philosophical Essay on Probabilities' (1814) crystallized the scientific version: an intellect that knew the position and momentum of every particle in the universe could, using Newton's laws, calculate the entire past and future in a single formula. This "Laplace's demon" became the emblem of causal determinism — the universe as a closed, perfectly predictable mechanism.

Worldview

The determinist sees the universe as a vast, perfectly interlocking mechanism in which every event — from the fall of a leaf to the firing of a neuron — is the inevitable consequence of prior causes stretching back to the beginning of time. There is a strange comfort in this vision: nothing is accidental, nothing is wasted, and the apparent chaos of experience conceals an underlying order of absolute necessity. The determinist experiences choice not as a genuine fork in the road but as the subjective feeling that accompanies a decision that was always going to happen. Spinoza called this the intellectual love of God — the serene acceptance that comes from understanding oneself as a necessary expression of the whole. The framework classifies this as None: the deterministic order requires no personal god or operative spirits; causal closure runs entirely through natural law. The framework reads this as None for moral authority: the deterministic order describes what is the case but does not, on its own, hand down a normatively final source — Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience are all themselves caused, and no one of them is recognized as ultimate over how to act.

Moral Implications

Determinism poses a profound challenge to conventional morality: if every action is necessitated by prior causes, then praise and blame, reward and punishment, seem to lose their justification. The determinist must either redefine moral responsibility in compatibilist terms — holding that "freedom" means acting from one's own determined character rather than from external compulsion — or accept the hard determinist conclusion that retributive punishment is never justified. In practice, determinism supports rehabilitative rather than punitive approaches to criminal justice, and it counsels compassion: if a person could not have done otherwise, condemnation is as irrational as blaming the weather.

Practical Implications

Determinism has shaped the development of predictive science, actuarial methods, and algorithmic decision-making — all of which rest on the assumption that future states can, in principle, be computed from present conditions. In public policy, determinism supports systemic interventions over individual blame: if behavior is causally determined by environment, genetics, and upbringing, then changing outcomes requires changing conditions rather than exhorting individuals to "choose better." The determinist approach to technology embraces optimization and prediction but must confront the ethical implications of treating human beings as fully predictable systems.

I. Time

Time is substantival and finite — a real, independent dimension within which all events are necessitated by prior causes. Time is continuous, linear, and uni-directional: the causal chain proceeds inexorably from past to future with no branching or reversal. Determinism treats time as a one-dimensional track along which Laplace's demon could in principle trace every event from initial conditions to final outcome.

Attributes
Extent: Finite Ontological Status: Substantival Grain: Continuous Freedom: Deterministic Traversability: Linear Dimensionality: One Direction: Uni-directional

II. Space

Space is substantival, finite, and flat — an objective container in which causally determined events unfold. It is local: every interaction is mediated by spatial proximity and obeys the laws of physics. Space is three-dimensional and operates according to strict causal principles that leave no room for spontaneous, uncaused events.

Attributes
Extent: Finite Ontological Status: Substantival Curvature: Flat Dimensionality: Three Locality: Local

III. Matter

Matter is substantival, finite, and locally situated — it obeys deterministic causal laws without exception. Conservation is strict: matter is neither created nor destroyed but merely rearranged by the inexorable working of physical causation. Every configuration of matter is fully determined by the preceding configuration plus the laws of nature.

Attributes
Extent: Finite Ontological Status: Substantival Conservation: Conserved Dimensionality: Three Locality: Local

IV. Observer

The observer is fixed at a specific point in a predetermined causal chain — its temporal and spatial position, its thoughts, even the act of observation itself, are all consequences of prior causes stretching back to the beginning of the universe. In principle, a sufficiently powerful intellect could know everything from initial conditions alone; total knowledge is theoretically achievable because the universe is a closed causal system with no genuine surprises. The observer is embodied and passive — it does not inject anything new into reality but merely enacts what was already determined. Multiple observers exist, but their interactions are themselves fully determined, links in an unbroken chain of cause and effect.

Attributes
Time Instance: Single Space Instance: Single Extent of Knowledge: Total Retainment of Knowledge: Total Physicality: Embodied Agency: Passive Number: Plural Metaphysical Agency: None Moral Authority: None Theological Method: N/A

V. Energy

Energy is substantival and finite — it is a real, independently existing quantity governed by deterministic physical laws. Conservation is strict: the total energy of the universe is fixed and every transformation is precisely determined. Dispersibility is irreversible, following the deterministic arrow of entropy.

Attributes
Extent: Finite Ontological Status: Substantival Conservation: Conserved Dispersibility: Irreversible

VI. Information

Complete information about initial conditions determines all future states — the universe is an informationally closed system with no surprises. Information is substantival and strictly conserved. The framework distinguishes scales: information is conserved at the cosmic scale (the universe is an informationally closed system whose state at one time fixes all others), but non-conserved at the personal-identity scale — once the physical pattern that constituted a person dissipates, no personal continuity survives.

Attributes
Ontological Status: Substantival Cosmic Conservation: Conserved Personal Conservation: Non-conserved Granularity: Continuous

Experiments This School Responds To (7)

Newcomb's Problem
1969 · Affirms / takes the bait
Hard determinism takes the Predictor case as a clean illustration: your "choice" was always going to be what it is, and the Predictor read off …
Bell Test Experiments
1964 / 1982 (loophole-free, 2015) · Reframes the question
A small minority defend superdeterminism (’t Hooft): the freedom-of-choice loophole was never closed in the metaphysically relevant sense, because no choice in a fully determined …
Libet's Free Will Experiments
1983 · Affirms / takes the bait
A canonical empirical confirmation: "free choices" are preceded by neural activity that determines them. Libertarian free will is a folk-psychological illusion now subject to neuroscientific …
Buridan's Ass
c. 1340 · Affirms / takes the bait
If reasons are equal, the agent stands still — or, in any actual ass, microscopic asymmetries break the tie deterministically. There is no separate "will" …
Frankfurt Cases
1969 · Affirms / takes the bait
Vindicates compatibilist determinism: agency and responsibility do not require indeterminism. Frankfurt cases free the determinist from the awkward project of explaining away the "could have …
Strawson's Reactive Attitudes
1962 · Reframes the question
Hard determinists (Pereboom) press back: Strawson too quickly assumes the reactive framework is non-negotiable. Detached reflection can and should modify it.
Discovery of Radioactivity
1896 / 1898 · Reframes the question
Hard determinists must accommodate the apparent indeterminism of radioactive decay; standard responses appeal to hidden variables or to many-worlds, neither uncontested.

Films Reading Through This School (3)

Debates Where This School Is Allied (7)

← #6 Relativism All Schools #8 Presentism →

Works that name Determinism in their embodiments

Foundational texts that draw on this school, with each work's declared weight.

25%
On Providence (fragments) (Mature)
Chrysippus of Soli · c. 250 BCE
20%
On the Bondage of the Will
Martin Luther · 1525
20%
A Philosophical Essay on Probabilities (Late)
Pierre-Simon Laplace · 1814 (Essai philosophique sur les probabilités)
15%
Leviathan
Thomas Hobbes · 1651
15%
De Cive (Early)
Thomas Hobbes · 1642 (Latin, Paris); English translation by Hobbes himself 1651
15%
Freedom of the Will (Late)
Jonathan Edwards · 1754
15%
Theogony
Hesiod · c. 700 BCE
10%
Ethics
Baruch Spinoza · completed c. 1675; published posthumously 1677
10%
An Essay on Free Will (Mid)
Peter van Inwagen · 1983
10%
Exposition du système du monde (Mid)
Pierre-Simon Laplace · 1796 (revised through 1824)
10%
Traité de mécanique céleste (Mid-to-late)
Pierre-Simon Laplace · 1799-1825 (5 vols)
10%
Théorie analytique des probabilités (Late)
Pierre-Simon Laplace · 1812 (revised 1814, 1820)
10%
Iliad
Homer · c. 750–700 BCE
10%
"Relative State" Formulation of Quantum Mechanics
Hugh Everett III · 1957
5%
Essays on Actions and Events (Mid)
Donald Davidson · 1980 (essays 1963-78)
5%
Discourses (Diatribai) (Mid)
Epictetus (recorded by Arrian) · c. 108 CE
5%
Enchiridion (Handbook) (Late)
Epictetus (compiled by Arrian) · c. 125 CE
5%
An Essay on Man (Late)
Alexander Pope · 1733-34

Personas with Determinism as a declared influence

50%  Pierre-Simon Laplace 20%  Thomas Hobbes 20%  Hugh Everett III 20%  Democritus of Abdera 15%  Stephen Hawking 15%  Richard Dawkins 15%  David Bohm 15%  Chrysippus of Soli 15%  Hesiod 10%  Daniel Kahneman 10%  Zeno of Citium 10%  Homer

How Determinism resolves each dilemma

56 resolved positions across 4 dimensions, including 9 distinctive where the majority of schools go the other way · 1 unaligned.

Each dimension is sorted so minority positions come first. Mainstream positions are folded into an expandable list.

Time · 9 dilemmas · 5 distinctive

Persistence, the future, and the direction of becoming.

Distinctive · only 10% of schools agree (20/208)
Do you really choose?
If the brain is a physical system and physical systems are governed by laws, then every choice is also a chain of causes — which raises the question of what was really left to choose.
Choice is structural illusion — every event is fixed by the prior state.
On this view, the future is fixed by the present, and the observer is a recipient of causes rather than an originator of them. The sense of choosing is real — but what is being chosen is itself a consequence of brain states that were …
Roads not taken The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it. (69%) · Choice is real within a determined order — agency and determinism aren’t opposites. (10%) · Even if the universe is undetermined, you are not the chooser. (6%)
Distinctive · only 10% of schools agree (20/208)
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
Addiction looks from one angle like the textbook case of agency failing — a person doing what they don't, in any meaningful sense, want to do. From another angle it looks like agency at work in hard conditions. Which it is depends on what agency is.
The addict's behaviour is the outcome of causes; 'responsibility' is a useful fiction, not a metaphysical fact.
On this view, the addict's brain state, history, genetics, and circumstances jointly produce the behaviour, and there is nothing inside the person that could have produced anything else. Calling the addict responsible is at best a social tool — useful for the deterrent and rehabilitative …
Roads not taken The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real. (69%) · The addict is genuinely responsible within a determined order. (10%) · Even if the universe is undetermined, the addict isn't the chooser. (6%)
Distinctive · only 10% of schools agree (20/208)
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
When an autonomous AI takes an action that harms someone, the question of who or what is responsible — the developer, the operator, the model itself — turns on whether the model is the kind of thing that can be a responsible agent.
An AI's behaviour is fully determined by training and input; 'responsibility' applies if at all to its makers.
On this view, the AI's output is a function of its training data, its architecture, and the input it received. There is no extra fact about the AI that could ground its responsibility, because there is no extra fact about the AI that could have …
Roads not taken An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible. (69%) · The AI can be a genuine agent within determined conditions — and therefore genuinely responsible. (10%) · Neither AIs nor anyone else are the locus of free agency; the question is the wrong one. (6%)
Distinctive · only 12% of schools agree (24/208)
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
The heat death of the universe — entropy maxed out, no further work possible — is among the more sobering implications of mainstream physics. Whether it is structurally inescapable depends on what kind of finitude the cosmos has.
The cosmos has bounds; heat death is a real horizon.
On this view, time itself is finite — the universe had a beginning and will have an end. Heat death (or whatever the actual end-state turns out to be) is a real horizon, structurally implied by the kind of cosmos we live in.
Roads not taken Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing. (47%) · Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional. (26%) · Both time and matter are unbounded; 'running out' is misframed. (15%)
Distinctive · only 12% of schools agree (24/208)
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Whether we can grow our way out of resource constraints — or whether the cosmos sets limits the economy ultimately must obey — depends on what kind of finitude matter has.
Resources are finite in the strict sense; living well requires accepting the limit.
On this view, the cosmos is bounded in both time and matter; resources are categorically not renewable beyond what cosmic processes provide. Practical limits and metaphysical limits coincide. Living well means living within limits, not engineering around them.
Roads not taken Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time. (47%) · The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us. (26%) · Resources are practically inexhaustible on cosmic scales; terrestrial limits are engineering. (15%)
4 mainstream positions
Matter · 7 dilemmas, all mainstream

Observer · 37 dilemmas · 3 distinctive

Mind, agency, and the knower's relation to the known.

Distinctive · only 12% of schools agree (25/208)
What is our place in nature?
Whether humans are masters of nature, members of nature, or makers of nature is not a question climate science can settle. It depends on what nature is, what we are, and what kind of relationship is possible between us.
Subject to a real natural order we did not make.
On these views, nature is a real, ordered, mind-independent reality that we are inside of but did not construct. Our fundamental posture toward it is one of observation, discovery, and humility before laws that are not ours to make. Stewardship and conservation are real obligations, …
Roads not taken Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform. (50%) · Nature is partly what we make of it — concepts, practices, and minds shape the world. (15%) · Embedded in a web — partners with the more-than-human world. (14%)
Distinctive · only 12% of schools agree (25/208)
Should we colonize space?
The drive to extend human presence beyond Earth is sometimes framed as the next chapter of stewardship, sometimes as hubris, sometimes as escape from problems we ought to solve here. Which it is depends on what we take our relationship to nature to be.
Nature includes its limits; colonisation is bounded by what the cosmos allows.
On these views, humans operate within a given natural order whose laws and limits set the terms. Space colonisation is fine to the extent that it is actually possible — radiation, gravity wells, biological tolerances — and folly to the extent that it requires denying …
Roads not taken Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship. (50%) · The 'space frontier' is partly what we make of it. (15%) · Colonisation continues the work that ended the wisdom of seven-generation thinking. (14%)
Distinctive · only 12% of schools agree (25/208)
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Editing the genomes of the plants and animals we eat is either the natural continuation of breeding — careful improvement of what is given — or a category error that treats biology as raw material rather than as living kind.
Biology is what it is; we modify it within real biological constraints.
On these views, organisms are real biological systems with real constraints, and genetic modification is reasonable when it works within those constraints and dangerous when it ignores them. The question is technical: does this modification do what its proponents say, with the unintended consequences they …
Roads not taken Genetic modification is cultivation by other means. (50%) · What counts as a 'natural' genome is itself a construction. (15%) · Editing the genome cuts into the relational fabric; we should be very slow. (14%)
33 mainstream positions
Could causation work backwards? Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural. 68% Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us? The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction. 68% Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it? The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description. 68% Is environmental damage ever truly permanent? Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation. 66% Can a civilization recover from collapse? Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial. 66% Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally? Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current. 66% Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed? Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all. 66% When does a person begin? A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence. 55% What is marriage? Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make. 55% Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally? Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally. 50% Can prayer for someone far away affect them? Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for. 47% Are coincidences ever more than coincidence? Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer. 47% Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom? The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems. 46% Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless? Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical. 46% Does prayer change God's mind? If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next. 46% Are the dead morally present to the living? Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present. 43% What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize? The category does not apply — the school is non-religious. 42% Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species? The discrete person is the moral primary. 38% What makes someone the same person over time? You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity. 36% Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married? Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed. 36% If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived? Different body, different person — you died in the scanner. 36% Is reality fundamentally digital? No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure. 36% Are there indivisible units of experience? No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time. 36% Is memory stored or reconstructed? Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams. 36% Does history have a direction or meaning? History is not where the deepest truth lives. 36% Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans? Animal minds are real because biology is the substrate of mind. 31% Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious? Brain tissue can in principle do what brains do; the question is integration. 31% What happens to "you" when you die? Death is genuinely the end. 29% Could an AI have a mind that matters? No — mind is what a biological brain does, and an LLM has no brain. 29% How is knowledge of reality produced? Through controlled empirical investigation. 17% Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it? Trust the method, not the institutions or the persons — and remain wary. 8% Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge? Revelation is not knowledge in the descriptive-empirical sense. 8% Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces? An LLM produces tokens; calling that 'knowledge' is a measurement choice. 8%
1 unaligned
Information · 4 dilemmas, all mainstream
Jump to school (208)
#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 #11 #12 #13 #14 #15 #16 #17 #18 #19 #20 #21 #22 #23 #24 #25 #26 #27 #28 #29 #30 #31 #32 #33 #34 #35 #36 #37 #38 #39 #40 #41 #42 #43 #44 #45 #46 #47 #48 #49 #50 #51 #52 #53 #54 #55 #56 #57 #58 #59 #60 #61 #62 #63 #64 #65 #66 #67 #68 #69 #70 #71 #72 #73 #74 #75 #76 #77 #78 #79 #80 #81 #82 #83 #84 #85 #86 #87 #88 #89 #90 #91 #92 #93 #94 #95 #96 #97 #98 #99 #100 #101 #102 #103 #104 #105 #106 #107 #108 #109 #110 #111 #112 #113 #114 #115 #116 #117 #118 #119 #120 #121 #122 #123 #124 #125 #126 #127 #128 #129 #130 #131 #132 #133 #134 #135 #136 #137 #138 #139 #140 #141 #142 #143 #144 #145 #146 #147 #148 #149 #150 #151 #152 #153 #154 #155 #156 #157 #158 #159 #160 #161 #162 #163 #164 #165 #166 #167 #168 #169 #170 #171 #172 #173 #174 #175 #176 #177 #178 #179 #180 #181 #182 #183 #184 #185 #186 #187 #188 #189 #190 #191 #192 #193 #194 #195 #196 #197 #198 #199 #200 #201 #202 #203 #204 #205 #206 #207 #208